Author Topic: StarCraft 2: More info  (Read 15301 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
You know, if they actually did decent stuff with the manuver AI/pathfinding so my units don't get strung out single file over long distances, and the story's decent, I could really care less if this was nothing more than an expansion pack. :P
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Raven2001

  • Machina Terra Reborn
  • 211
  • Im not the droid your looking for, move along
Re: StarCraft 2: More info

Unfortunately allot of people are ignoring all of that in favour of bashing the game for whatever reason.  I mean constructive criticism is one thing but there are at least three widespread movements on why StarCraft II sucks:

Group 1: The game is too much like WarCraft 3.  Nothing must be automated.  You must micro everything.

Group 2: The game is too much like StarCraft.  Make something new.

Group 3: The game is too different than StarCraft...make the same game.

WTF.

Well, I for one am ignoring those points, because, really, it has been done before. Blizzard has more resources than most gaming companies, and yet they seem to be keen on ripping off other games ideas.

When was the last time you saw something really original and\or groundbreaking from Blizzard?
Yeah, I know you were waiting for a very nice sig, in which I was quoting some very famous scientist or philosopher... guess what?!? I wont indulge you...

Why, you ask? What, do I look like a Shivan to you?!?


Raven is a god.

 

Offline IceFire

  • GTVI Section 3
  • 212
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/ce
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Never...Blizzard never did something really original or groundbreaking.  WarCraft was just like Dune 2.  Diablo is like a dozen other games in the genre.  StarCraft is WarCraft in space if you really want to boil it down.  Yeah I just don't think that innovation is what they really strive for.  They have lots of resources because when they do make a game its really top of its class in most or all respects.  StarCraft wasn't really a groundbreaking game in any way...if it were to be called groundbreaking then possibly because it was one of the first to have 3 sides to play instead of the more traditional 2.

I just think they get lots of negative press for something they never really set out to do.  I should also point out that my previous post wasn't strictly intended for anyone here...I read allot of the StarCraft community sites and I'm just really surprised at some of the responses.  I mean I guess they are on the right track if everyone hates them for opposing reasons :)

I want basically what they are giving me...which I guess is why I'm so enamored with it.  I wanted a sequel to StarCraft: new units, old units, better graphics, gameplay tweaks, and a new story.  I'm not so concerned about massive changes to the way its played.  I guess I feel that'd be better reserved for a new title.  I don't know...
- IceFire
BlackWater Ops, Cold Element
"Burn the land, boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me..."

 

Offline Raven2001

  • Machina Terra Reborn
  • 211
  • Im not the droid your looking for, move along
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Well IIRC (I may remember incorrectly mind you :P ), Warcraft 1\2 got RTS moving forward with innovative features (trhe concept wasnt, but some features were), and I dont remember any other game like Diablo (especially multiplayer wise) before it.
Yeah, I know you were waiting for a very nice sig, in which I was quoting some very famous scientist or philosopher... guess what?!? I wont indulge you...

Why, you ask? What, do I look like a Shivan to you?!?


Raven is a god.

 

Offline Dark RevenantX

  • 29
  • anonymity —> animosity
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Starcraft II is either going to be the best damn strategy game of 2009 or it's going to be the biggest failure in the history of gaming.  That's how I sum up Blizzard's situation.

 
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Never...Blizzard never did something really original or groundbreaking.  WarCraft was just like Dune 2.  Diablo is like a dozen other games in the genre.  StarCraft is WarCraft in space if you really want to boil it down.  Yeah I just don't think that innovation is what they really strive for.  They have lots of resources because when they do make a game its really top of its class in most or all respects.  StarCraft wasn't really a groundbreaking game in any way...if it were to be called groundbreaking then possibly because it was one of the first to have 3 sides to play instead of the more traditional 2.

      Uh, Dune 2 had three sides to play.
      StarCraft and Warcraft are the games that Blizzard made when they didn't get the respectively warhammer licenses as far as I've heard.

Quote
I want basically what they are giving me...which I guess is why I'm so enamored with it.  I wanted a sequel to StarCraft: new units, old units, better graphics, gameplay tweaks, and a new story.  I'm not so concerned about massive changes to the way its played.  I guess I feel that'd be better reserved for a new title.  I don't know...

       Doesn't that sum up pretty much most of the new games that come out?
       I don't hate starcraft, but I don't understand people going ape **** over what looks to be the same old game.

 

Offline IceFire

  • GTVI Section 3
  • 212
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/ce
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Ok I have to concede on Diablo...I did some checking and it looks like it was probably the first to be played like that.  Prior to that it was allot of turn based setups.  So some innovation there.  Its still basically an RPG but the play style is somewhat different.

Of course Dune 2 had three sides but they were three sides, three colors, different mentats, and in the last couple of missions you'd get a unique unit that the others didn't have.  Oh and the Ordos didn't have Quads did they.  It should, however, be obvious that the point I was making was a bit deeper than surface level.

So really the issue if I understand everyone is that most games these days are the same as previous games.  Which I agree.  There are only a few that really have innovated.  I think the games industry has reached maturity...the numbers of ways and playing different games have largely been explored.  There are small tweaks but not much else.  Is there something that Blizzard or another RTS maker should add that wouldn't damage the gameplay?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2008, 05:51:09 pm by IceFire »
- IceFire
BlackWater Ops, Cold Element
"Burn the land, boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me..."

 

Offline Ace

  • Truth of Babel
  • 212
    • http://www.lordofrigel.com
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Never...Blizzard never did something really original or groundbreaking.  WarCraft was just like Dune 2.  Diablo is like a dozen other games in the genre.  StarCraft is WarCraft in space if you really want to boil it down.  Yeah I just don't think that innovation is what they really strive for.  They have lots of resources because when they do make a game its really top of its class in most or all respects.  StarCraft wasn't really a groundbreaking game in any way...if it were to be called groundbreaking then possibly because it was one of the first to have 3 sides to play instead of the more traditional 2.

Warcraft I was a polished Dune II clone, while War2 was a refinement.

Diablo on the other hand was a very unique Rogue-like, which became cloned to death.

Starcraft didn't do anything too innovative, minus having three unique factions with their own balance which was a trend that RTSes were slowly aiming toward.

Warcraft 3 tried to be innovative, but in the end just added the 'heroes' mechanic to Starcraft.

WoW is simply a more polished Everquest type MMO.
Ace
Self-plagiarism is style.
-Alfred Hitchcock

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Quote
I don't hate starcraft, but I don't understand people going ape **** over what looks to be the same old game.


Look at it this way:Major Freespace: The Great War fans no doubt went ape**** when they found out there was a sequel to their game that is pretty much the same, but better.

It's really the same thing here, starcraft is such a legend that people (including myself) are going to get excited over a game that looks like an improved version of the original BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL WAS SO AWESOME.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline Mefustae

  • 210
  • Chevron locked...
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
As long as the single-player story is good, i'll be a happy camper. However, if they decide to go the Halo 3 route and completely neglect the story or single-player in general in favor of focusing on the multiplayer aspects, somebody's going to get firebombed.

 

Offline Raven2001

  • Machina Terra Reborn
  • 211
  • Im not the droid your looking for, move along
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
So really the issue if I understand everyone is that most games these days are the same as previous games.  Which I agree.  There are only a few that really have innovated.  I think the games industry has reached maturity...the numbers of ways and playing different games have largely been explored.  There are small tweaks but not much else.  Is there something that Blizzard or another RTS maker should add that wouldn't damage the gameplay?

Personally I think its more accurate to say that the gaming industry has reached senility, because mature beings tend to have creativity\innovation at its apex.
The big problem is the ca$h syndrome however. I'm 100% positive that there are another bazillion new ways of playing a game (technology and new interfaces make sure of that), but obviously studios wont risk developing them, lest their product doesnt sell.
My real gripe with Blizzard (and some others) is that they have the resources to try and innovate (and consequently make mistakes), yet they don't. Instead they produce ripoff after ripoff, and everyone cheers them for it.
I'm not a Bethesda lover (especially now about what they're doing to the Fallout universe), but atleast I gotta give them credit for atleast trying (unsuccessfully on most occasions though) to make different ways of playing a game.
Yeah, I know you were waiting for a very nice sig, in which I was quoting some very famous scientist or philosopher... guess what?!? I wont indulge you...

Why, you ask? What, do I look like a Shivan to you?!?


Raven is a god.

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Quote
Instead they produce ripoff after ripoff,


Not ripoff, refinement. :p


Seriously though, when you compare SC to other RTS's of its time (such as red alert 2), it still comes out ahead because even though it does the same thing, it does it better, and that's what really matters.

Don't forget that our beloved Freespace is just a "rip off" of Tie-Fighter.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline IceFire

  • GTVI Section 3
  • 212
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/ce
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
So really the issue if I understand everyone is that most games these days are the same as previous games.  Which I agree.  There are only a few that really have innovated.  I think the games industry has reached maturity...the numbers of ways and playing different games have largely been explored.  There are small tweaks but not much else.  Is there something that Blizzard or another RTS maker should add that wouldn't damage the gameplay?

Personally I think its more accurate to say that the gaming industry has reached senility, because mature beings tend to have creativity\innovation at its apex.
The big problem is the ca$h syndrome however. I'm 100% positive that there are another bazillion new ways of playing a game (technology and new interfaces make sure of that), but obviously studios wont risk developing them, lest their product doesnt sell.
My real gripe with Blizzard (and some others) is that they have the resources to try and innovate (and consequently make mistakes), yet they don't. Instead they produce ripoff after ripoff, and everyone cheers them for it.
I'm not a Bethesda lover (especially now about what they're doing to the Fallout universe), but atleast I gotta give them credit for atleast trying (unsuccessfully on most occasions though) to make different ways of playing a game.
I completely understand what you mean...but I'm not convinced there are too many new ways of putting together a game.  I think all of the major genres have been thought of and the only room left is to combine genres together to create some sort of mix and match setups. 

That all said I was quite interested and surprised by a game that my friend showed me last night...for the Wii...part of a downloadable game that was only 30-40mb.  Its a platformer but you essentially draw on the screen what your interactions are with the game world.  Want your character to land softly...well draw a series of squiggles around the bottom of the character as he falls.  Bash enemies by essentially drawing on them.  It was kinda neat...and I suppose innovative. But its still a platformer too so I don't know.

I think that if Blizzard, since they are the topic, were to do something new and innovative it shouldn't be done with SC2. It should be done with a new game altogether.
- IceFire
BlackWater Ops, Cold Element
"Burn the land, boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me..."

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Was that Okami? That's considered one of the best games in recent memory.

 

Offline Raven2001

  • Machina Terra Reborn
  • 211
  • Im not the droid your looking for, move along
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Not ripoff, refinement. :p

Seriously though, when you compare SC to other RTS's of its time (such as red alert 2), it still comes out ahead because even though it does the same thing, it does it better, and that's what really matters.

Don't forget that our beloved Freespace is just a "rip off" of Tie-Fighter.

Call it what you will, its still unoriginality :P

As for comparing RA2 to SC I wont go trough there, since its highly debatable (some people might prefer SC, others prefr RA2)

And I never said otherwise about our beloved Freespace either :P



I completely understand what you mean...but I'm not convinced there are too many new ways of putting together a game.  I think all of the major genres have been thought of and the only room left is to combine genres together to create some sort of mix and match setups. 

That all said I was quite interested and surprised by a game that my friend showed me last night...for the Wii...part of a downloadable game that was only 30-40mb.  Its a platformer but you essentially draw on the screen what your interactions are with the game world.  Want your character to land softly...well draw a series of squiggles around the bottom of the character as he falls.  Bash enemies by essentially drawing on them.  It was kinda neat...and I suppose innovative. But its still a platformer too so I don't know.

I think that if Blizzard, since they are the topic, were to do something new and innovative it shouldn't be done with SC2. It should be done with a new game altogether.

Well, IMO genres are just conventions, so basically you can have a bazillion ways to make, say an FPS (or an RTS, or whatever). For example portal is considered an FPS, and its still original\innovative, same goes for Prey: a couple of features - that gravity and mirrors thingy - made for a truly different FPS experience, the whole game was build on those features, and in the end it payed off, gameplay wise. Their still FPSes, but their innovative.
If you want more, search YouTube for Neurosky or MetaMersion.
I believe thats enough to convince you :P

As for Blizzard, I really dont care if they do SC2 or if they do Jack the Ripper XII, as long as they do something that clearly is a fresh breeze.
Yeah, I know you were waiting for a very nice sig, in which I was quoting some very famous scientist or philosopher... guess what?!? I wont indulge you...

Why, you ask? What, do I look like a Shivan to you?!?


Raven is a god.

 

Offline TopAce

  • Stalwart contributor
  • 212
  • FREDder, FSWiki editor, and tester
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Starcraft II is either going to be the best damn strategy game of 2009 or it's going to be the biggest failure in the history of gaming.  That's how I sum up Blizzard's situation.

If it becomes a failure, it definitely won't be the biggest in gaming history, no matter how much money they put into it. SC1 fans will buy it anyway, and from a financial point of view, it doesn't matter if you like the game that you bought or not. Perhaps you won't buy SC3 after being so much disappointed at SC2, but that's something Blizzard does not want to care about right now.

I would say that SC2 has all what it takes to be a financially successful and critically acclaimed product. I can't see why it would be a failure, apart from the "too much like the prequel" factor. It has nice graphics - a lot of people buy games just for this -, seemingly superior gameplay to its prequel (being able to select more than 12 units -, and an irresistable urge to try all three species because they are at the same time similar and different than the ones we have gotten used to.

Though I am not a fervent SC player, I will try this game, perhaps after reading some reviews or asking some friends about it.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 09:55:31 am by TopAce »
My community contributions - Get my campaigns from here.

I already announced my retirement twice, yet here I am. If I bring up that topic again, don't believe a word.

 

Offline Hellstryker

  • waffles
  • 210
    • Skype
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
The only major problem I have with the game is the graphics look way too cartoonish... being able to select more than 12 units at once is pretty gay too, IMO

 

Offline TopAce

  • Stalwart contributor
  • 212
  • FREDder, FSWiki editor, and tester
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Depends on your playstyle. For casual players like me, using awkward tactics like splitting x number of units to y groups of z units and attacking from y-2 directions is very rare, so I especially disliked Blizzard's decision to limit the number of units you can select, even if I see the reason behind that.
My community contributions - Get my campaigns from here.

I already announced my retirement twice, yet here I am. If I bring up that topic again, don't believe a word.

 

Offline Hellstryker

  • waffles
  • 210
    • Skype
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Personally I think it should be game setting specific. IE: You choose the ammount of selectable units while hosting.

 

Offline Dark RevenantX

  • 29
  • anonymity —> animosity
Re: StarCraft 2: More info
Starcraft II is either going to be the best damn strategy game of 2009 or it's going to be the biggest failure in the history of gaming.  That's how I sum up Blizzard's situation.

If it becomes a failure, it definitely won't be the biggest in gaming history, no matter how much money they put into it. SC1 fans will buy it anyway, and from a financial point of view, it doesn't matter if you like the game that you bought or not. Perhaps you won't be SC3 after being so much disappointed at SC2, but that's something Blizzard does not want to care about right now.

I would say that SC2 has all what it takes to be a financially successful and critically acclaimed product. I can't see why it would be a failure, apart from the "too much like the prequel" factor. It has nice graphics - a lot of people buy games just for this -, seemingly superior gameplay to its prequel (being able to select more than 12 units -, and an irresistable urge to try all three species because they are at the same time similar and different than the ones we have gotten used to.

Though I am not a fervent SC player, I will try this game, perhaps after reading some reviews or asking some friends about it.

...which means it's going to be the best damn game of 2009!